Moderators

[hiero2]

. . . . I think he needed a hug mostly.

You and Hammy.

 

[hiero2]

I've been told that my posts are reported more frequently than any other member of this forum. I was kind of surprised by the percentage quoted by the mod that PM'd me. . .

I think he was trying to flatter you. If memory serves, you were down about #11 or below. However, many people WOULD frequently be surprised at who gets complained about.

Skinny legs.

 

[hiero2]

This should have been done via PM





As it's specific to the thread, I see value in posting this admonition in the thread, but . . .

My POV is that Wallace and Gromit has only been a mod for a week or so, is learning the trade while on the job, is bound to make a few mistakes along the way doing so, and will learn from them.

Unfortunate, but not the end of the world. . . .

Concur with SB. I made some similar errors, and managed to eventually breath again. When working as a mod, I tended to try and treat the posters as though they were rational - this being my preferred mode. It rarely worked - or, more accurately, it frequently did not work.

 

[hiero2]

Not sure where to post this.

Is it possible for us to have more inbox space? I am constantly at 96% or 98%... I want to save some PMs but I've had to delete some conversations I wanted to keep already.

Download them to your local drive is one possible answer. That's what I did. Not a good solution - but at least I've still got them somewhere.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I think he was trying to flatter you. If memory serves, you were down about #11 or below. However, many people WOULD frequently be surprised at who gets complained about.



Skinny legs.

It didn't read that way...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You and Hammy.

I'm more of a rusty trombone guy.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Concur with SB. I made some similar errors, and managed to eventually breath again. When working as a mod, I tended to try and treat the posters as though they were rational - this being my preferred mode. It rarely worked - or, more accurately, it frequently did not work.

Can't 100% tell if either of you agree or not, am guessing yes, that it should have been done via PM, or you'd say otherwise.

Good.

Not sure I understand the "managed to breathe again" line. If someone points it out in the mods thread, with suggestion for improvement, as I have done, is this a bad thing?

As for your little jibe about posters being irrational - I fail to see the relevance of that to my suggestions of
1. taking personal admonitions to PM
2. NOT outing posters for reporting another specific poster's posts in the thread

 

[LaFlorecita]

You can save messages to your computer. It's an option in the drop down box.

Download them to your local drive is one possible answer. That's what I did. Not a good solution - but at least I've still got them somewhere.

Didn't know that was possible, thanks.

 

[Netserk]

Didn't know that was possible, thanks.

At the bottom of your inbox (I prefer to save them as text, but try them out )

 

[LaFlorecita]

Thanks Netserk, it seems to work fine

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Surprised it's only for a week. Hint

What's in the link you hid in plain sight?

More generally, one man's foibles are another's cant and lies. Exploiting the 'forum shield' to throw smears you would never make in public under your own name doesn't seem so courageous to me, but if it keeps the pageviews up...

So I have no problem with temporary exclusion from the frat house, but I would like some clarification of the "agenda" question with reference to this post.

1. Is it the view of moderators that posters disagreeing with these unequivocal statements is trolling?

2. How is this post consistent with posting guidance:
"you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping" as a fact. You can't claim your post as a fact unless you provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement. Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point. To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic. "

Genuine questions. Thanks in advance.

 

[Netserk]

What's in the link you hid in plain sight?

More generally, one man's foibles are another's cant and lies. Exploiting the 'forum shield' to throw smears you would never make in public under your own name doesn't seem so courageous to me, but if it keeps the pageviews up...

I could just quote the post I linked to, but perhaps there's a reason why you can't access it? The same reason why I won't quote it. It was only meant as a small hint to those who can access it.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

I could just quote the post I linked to, but perhaps there's a reason why you can't access it? The same reason why I won't quote it. It was only meant as a small hint to those who can access it.

What is it? A secret public PM to members of the fraternity? Why post in public?

 

[Afrank]

What is it? A secret public PM to members of the fraternity? Why post in public?

Something in the mods sections. Only moderators are able to see it.

 

[Afrank]

What's in the link you hid in plain sight?

More generally, one man's foibles are another's cant and lies. Exploiting the 'forum shield' to throw smears you would never make in public under your own name doesn't seem so courageous to me, but if it keeps the pageviews up...

So I have no problem with temporary exclusion from the frat house, but I would like some clarification of the "agenda" question with reference to this post.

1. Is it the view of moderators that posters disagreeing with these unequivocal statements is trolling?

2. How is this post consistent with posting guidance:
"you can't just say "we know Bobby the Bod is doping" as a fact. You can't claim your post as a fact unless you provide some proof using linked sources or verifiable material. If, on the other hand, it is in the realm of "common knowledge", then it is acceptable to make an unverified statement. Be careful - common knowledge would apply, for instance, at the time of this posting, to Lance Armstrong. But allegations of current doping, and current riders, would not be "common knowledge" at this point. To be common knowledge, the "fact" has to have been published, widely read, and widely agreed with. This point is particularly applicable in The Clinic. "

Genuine questions. Thanks in advance.

The conversation Red Flanders is talking about is a conversation on the "how, will he be caught, change in testing regime, etc." For such a conversation the members partaking in it must take the stance and opinion that Froome is doping. Otherwise such a conversation can't occur. So for that reason saying Froome is doping would be for the sake of having the conversation and thus fall under the realm of opinion.

If it was a conversation on if Froome was or was not doping and he stated something like "It's a fact Froome is doping, period." But did not provide the evidence or proof to back said fact up, then it would be in violation of that posting guideline.

 

[red_flanders]

I also clearly outlined that it's my opinion in this next post. But yes, when I stated it as I did in the first post, I was aware that I could get some sanction for it. Even though obviously it was my opinion.

 

[Ventoux Boar]

Thanks, both, for the replies. Much obliged.

 

[Ripper]

So Mods, is the Doc gonna be unbanned?

 

[the sceptic]

bison, I know you are a clueless mod, but seriously. how does hog get banned for about 10 times as long as RR? Just because RR is furiously reporting every post doesnt mean he is any better.

I havent read the latest posting war, but I cant imagine it can be bad enough to ban people for 3 months. Its like North Korea in here.

does anyone know if velorooms is readable these days?

 

[zlev11]

velorooms is great if you're a skybot

 

[sittingbison]

...I havent read the latest posting war, but I cant imagine it can be bad enough to ban people for 3 months....

perhaps you SHOULD read "the latest posting war" or "the steaming pile of trolling BS" before offering an opinion. Remembering that thehog has only just returned from being banned a month for exactly the same thing, if you still think the bolded then perhaps you'd better rething who is being clueless.

 

[42x16ss]

velorooms is great if you're a skybot

Avoid the doping section and it's not bad at all, a bit slow at times though.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'll start by saying the mod's job is a thankless one, and payless.

As someone who recently received a 3 day ban for significantly less "bickering" than the last 3+ days, 20+ pages of utter dross and multiple warnings in that thread, I am miffed, that the constant bickering evident lead to no ban for at least one of the bickerers.

I also like to think I am not naive, and thehog had points that seemed reasonable to me (#361 is probably gone), and was attacked directly by RR and others, who played the man far harder than thehog's responses.

I am in agreement that thehog's ban and duration seems unfair vs RR and other participants who received no punishment whatsoever.

Curious if the points system mentioned up the topics list could be reinstated or summat?

 

[sittingbison]

...for significantly less "bickering" than the last 3+ days, 20+ pages of utter dross and multiple warnings in that thread...

bolded is the important bit.

race radio is banned for a week, not "no punishment whatsoever". unfortunately for thehog #361 is still in play.

 

[Ferminal]

Hog will be alien in July with three months training in the wilderness.